The commission received the comments and dealt with the policy February 13. ERAB generally accepted the proposal, while MAPC recommended that the policy not be changed, rejecting Denton's plan. The commission also passed the alternatives on to the County Commission for review, which gave strong indications that, if Wichita ceased water service outside its limits, the county would enter the water business. Instead of commenting on the proposed water policy as requested, the County Commission began on January 31, to consider water sources for outlying areas. The County Commission also directed its legal staff to prepare counter options as a recourse for city actions. Commissioner Gragg said, "I'm convinced the county is going to be in the water business," and Commissioner Tom Scott assured all county residents of a water supply, "I think we should have some alternate or some kind of plan." Although the county failed to give Lakin a comment to take back to the City Commission, he said, "I got the message that that they consider a water service to be imperative." (Eagle, 2/1/79).

Despite the opposition, the City Commission was still inclined to change the water policy. A problem in the old annexation agreement was that it could be signed by a developer and once the land was sold to individual homeowners, strong opposition to annexation could arise because of the city taxes. The argument continued to be made that developers built outside the city to avoid paying city taxes while taking advantage of city services, resulting in urban sprawl. This attitude prevailed and the commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the new water and sewer policy, but without the provision for an annexation agreement or the adoption of growth lines.

With the new policy, however, many questions remained to be answered. The county was alarmed by the city's action, and many developers argued that businessmen could lose money on investments in land which could not receive water. The city still could sell water to areas which could not be annexed, but it would be decided on a case-by-case basis, leaving the consequences uncertain. The city administration also was unsure of handling existing land developments when the water policy changed.

However, the commissioners refused to back down, voting on February 28 to withhold water from developments already in the planning process and outside the city limits unless they already had contracts. Voting 3 to 0, with Peters absent and Casado abstaining, they also stated that those with contracts would have to conscientiously seek island annexation. Even if the county refused, the city was committed to some of the projects and had to provide water.

The Oaklawn Improvement District stood to lose its Wichita water service as a result of the decision. Wynkoop informed the district, "Under the new policy, if the district wishes to obtain water from Wichita...its representatives will need to appear before the City Commission and ask to be annexed...(or) arrange a date at which time the current temporary water supply from Wichita to Oaklawn can be terminated." District President Wayne Hopkins replied that Oaklawn would not accept annexation, and instead was just "sitting tight looking for alternatives." (Eagle-Beacon, 3/21/79).

The Sedgwick County Commission added more controversy also when Commissioner Gragg talked to El Dorado representatives on March 5 about the possibility of getting water for Sedgwick County from El Dorado Lake, which was under construction. Gragg indicated he opposed the city's actions, and also island annexation. Various developers prepared to take Wichita to court over the policy. 
Before any further action, however, city elections were held. Bob Knight and Bob Brown were elected as City Commissioners, and both had opposed the water policy during the campaign. After hearing petitions for water service, the new commission voted 3 to 2 to reverse the water policy. In its place, the commission reverted to the old policy, with the exception that it maintained the requirement that developers pay for all costs of extending water service outside of the city. Both Brown and Knight voted for the change, arguing that restricting water would limit growth and progress. Casado went along with the reversal, after voting for the policy in February, claiming he was opposed to island annexation and had not fully understood the implications of the policy. With the vote, developers breathed a sigh of relief. Despite the brief respite, the city water system continued its expansion, slowly attaining metropolitan proportions.

Considering the developments which had occurred since the city of Wichita purchased the Water Company--expansion into out-of-city residences, businesses, rural water districts, improvement districts, and cities, both in Sedgwick and neighboring counties--it was clear that the Wichita water system was becoming a crucial service to the entire metropolitan area. Many times throughout its history, Wichita was opposed by rural interests concerned about autonomy. As Wichita's water system expanded, giving it leverage to exert influence on the region, these forces worried about Wichita's control. Unlike Kansas City and other large cities in the state, Wichita is not located in an urban environment. Instead, it is a large city of 280,000, surrounded by a rural area with different aims and ambitions. This anomaly consistently created unique confrontations for the city.

As Wichita assumes greater responsibilities and reaches larger numbers of customers, the need for new water supplies is intensified. During the period that Wichita expanded its service, it also continued to work in a most vital area, the search for water.